What do forumites think of having F1 racing Zandvoort again? I think it's a track that flows beautifully but am worried they would need to ruin it for F1. There is also the issue of overtaking which doesn't bother me but I'm sure the lack of it would bother many. That being said we all thought that about Paul Ricard...

If you look at how small the track has become, I think it may suffer from the same problems the Hungaroring is known for. If there is no problem adding all the silly run-off areas, then perhaps they might even get permission to enlarge the track again. But I'm not hopeful, and even in 1985 Prost couldn't get past a perfectly defending Lauda. However, that problem might be solved by artificial DRS overtakes.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

If you look at how small the track has become, I think it may suffer from the same problems the Hungaroring is known for. If there is no problem adding all the silly run-off areas, then perhaps they might even get permission to enlarge the track again. But I'm not hopeful, and even in 1985 Prost couldn't get past a perfectly defending Lauda. However, that problem might be solved by artificial DRS overtakes.

I think the Hungaroring has produced a lot of good races in different times. My main concern is that I look at some corners and I just can't see them letting F1 cars race around it without increasing the run off and there is no space to increase the run off.

I wouldn't mind seeing Zandvoort back on the calendar. It's a good layout (although they might have to change it somewhat to bring it up to current regulations), it's got history, and it's in a location that makes good sense to have a race. I would, in fact, much prefer it to seeing a street race in Miami; if one of those two projects goes through, I hope it's Zandvoort.

If you look at how small the track has become, I think it may suffer from the same problems the Hungaroring is known for. If there is no problem adding all the silly run-off areas, then perhaps they might even get permission to enlarge the track again. But I'm not hopeful, and even in 1985 Prost couldn't get past a perfectly defending Lauda. However, that problem might be solved by artificial DRS overtakes.

Surely you mean Prost couldn't get past a poorly defending Lauda right? Because if he was perfectly defending then of course it shouldn't have been possible to be passed, whether it be around Zandvoort or even on a hypothetical track that is super conducive for overtakes.

My point is stemming mainly from the notion that if a driver can defend perfectly yet they still get passed, then this isn't real racing is it? For example many of the overly easy DRS overtakes that we see, where the defender is often a mere spectator in the passing maneuver; this is not real racing and is why purists don't like it.

This seems to have been done for commercial reasons rather than improving the racing, it was said that future tracks would be be designed to facilitate better over taking, from what I've read about Zandvoort it looks like they have turned a blind eye to that criteria?

If you look at how small the track has become, I think it may suffer from the same problems the Hungaroring is known for. If there is no problem adding all the silly run-off areas, then perhaps they might even get permission to enlarge the track again. But I'm not hopeful, and even in 1985 Prost couldn't get past a perfectly defending Lauda. However, that problem might be solved by artificial DRS overtakes.

Surely you mean Prost couldn't get past a poorly defending Lauda right? Because if he was perfectly defending then of course it shouldn't have been possible to be passed, whether it be around Zandvoort or even on a hypothetical track that is super conducive for overtakes.

My point is stemming mainly from the notion that if a driver can defend perfectly yet they still get passed, then this isn't real racing is it? For example many of the overly easy DRS overtakes that we see, where the defender is often a mere spectator in the passing maneuver; this is not real racing and is why purists don't like it.

No, I didn't mean that Prost couldn't get past a poorly defending Lauda. The track allowed a slower driver to remain in front, as you can see if you watch that race again. And Prost didn't get past, so I don't understand your post.

Just in case some on the forum would like to attend the Dutch Grand Prix next year; the authorities hope that most visitors will come by bicycle! Something tells me the Tour de France will start at Zandvoort next year too...

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

This seems to have been done for commercial reasons rather than improving the racing, it was said that future tracks would be be designed to facilitate better over taking, from what I've read about Zandvoort it looks like they have turned a blind eye to that criteria?

This seems to have been done for commercial reasons rather than improving the racing, it was said that future tracks would be be designed to facilitate better over taking, from what I've read about Zandvoort it looks like they have turned a blind eye to that criteria?

100%

Yeah, but what other track is there to accommodate a Dutch GP? The recent success of Max calls for one, but I can't think of another track that would make it

Yes but it shows we are awful at judging if a track will produce overtaking or not.

Personally I'm not fussed. If you design tracks for overtaking you end up with all tracks feeling alike. It's good to have variety. if Zandvoort produces very little overtaking but the cars look good on the track and it flows beautifully then I don't see it as a bad thing at all.

Assen isn't a bad circuit, more overtaking possibly, although not sure if up to F1 safety standards.

Can't see much action taking place at Zandvoort, for reasons others have said above. It's been done purely for commercial reasons with Max most likely to be in the sport for at least the next 13-14 years.

This seems to have been done for commercial reasons rather than improving the racing, it was said that future tracks would be be designed to facilitate better over taking, from what I've read about Zandvoort it looks like they have turned a blind eye to that criteria?

100%

Yeah, but what other track is there to accommodate a Dutch GP? The recent success of Max calls for one, but I can't think of another track that would make it

None that wouldn't require a shed load of money spending but then again that's what new circuits to the calendar tend to do?

This seems to have been done for commercial reasons rather than improving the racing, it was said that future tracks would be be designed to facilitate better over taking, from what I've read about Zandvoort it looks like they have turned a blind eye to that criteria?

100%

Yeah, but what other track is there to accommodate a Dutch GP? The recent success of Max calls for one, but I can't think of another track that would make it

None that wouldn't require a shed load of money spending but then again that's what new circuits to the calendar tend to do?

Remember when Grands Prix were even run in another country? The Swiss Grand Prix at Dijon, for example. I understand the "need" for a Dutch Grand Prix, but Max already has a home event at Francorchamps. (He said, only half-joking... )

I think that Assen, as it is now, is at least as good a track as Zandvoort, as it is now. But I assume the powers that be wish to retain Assen's status as one of the prime motorcycle tracks in the world (they don't call it the "cathedral" for nothing), and F1 and MotoGP aren't exactly compatible in the modern world. Any changes to accommodate F1 might make it less safe to motorcycle racing, and prove to be self-defeating in the longer run. But none of this makes Zandvoort any better as a track, of course.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

This seems to have been done for commercial reasons rather than improving the racing, it was said that future tracks would be be designed to facilitate better over taking, from what I've read about Zandvoort it looks like they have turned a blind eye to that criteria?

100%

Yeah, but what other track is there to accommodate a Dutch GP? The recent success of Max calls for one, but I can't think of another track that would make it

None that wouldn't require a shed load of money spending but then again that's what new circuits to the calendar tend to do?

Remember when Grands Prix were even run in another country? The Swiss Grand Prix at Dijon, for example. I understand the "need" for a Dutch Grand Prix, but Max already has a home event at Francorchamps. (He said, only half-joking... )

I think that Assen, as it is now, is at least as good a track as Zandvoort, as it is now. But I assume the powers that be wish to retain Assen's status as one of the prime motorcycle tracks in the world (they don't call it the "cathedral" for nothing), and F1 and MotoGP aren't exactly compatible in the modern world. Any changes to accommodate F1 might make it less safe to motorcycle racing, and prove to be self-defeating in the longer run. But none of this makes Zandvoort any better as a track, of course.

Probably more than half joking his Mother is Belgian and I believe he was born in Belgium?

My understanding is that Assen might have been a better choice but it's a top class MotoGP circuit and there was some qualms that it would have ruined the track for the riders?

Hopefully then they will leave all of the gravel traps in place. Wasn't MotoGP one of the primary reasons why they started replacing gravel traps with tarmac run-offs? If Zandvoort punishes mistakes hard then that might make for good viewing

Hopefully then they will leave all of the gravel traps in place. Wasn't MotoGP one of the primary reasons why they started replacing gravel traps with tarmac run-offs? If Zandvoort punishes mistakes hard then that might make for good viewing

Yeah it's funny that people said the first thing they would do is replace the gravel traps with tarmac run off areas but I seemed to notice a lot of gravel traps at Barcelona so what you're saying about the bikes might be true?

Yeah, but what other track is there to accommodate a Dutch GP? The recent success of Max calls for one, but I can't think of another track that would make it

None that wouldn't require a shed load of money spending but then again that's what new circuits to the calendar tend to do?

Remember when Grands Prix were even run in another country? The Swiss Grand Prix at Dijon, for example. I understand the "need" for a Dutch Grand Prix, but Max already has a home event at Francorchamps. (He said, only half-joking... )

I think that Assen, as it is now, is at least as good a track as Zandvoort, as it is now. But I assume the powers that be wish to retain Assen's status as one of the prime motorcycle tracks in the world (they don't call it the "cathedral" for nothing), and F1 and MotoGP aren't exactly compatible in the modern world. Any changes to accommodate F1 might make it less safe to motorcycle racing, and prove to be self-defeating in the longer run. But none of this makes Zandvoort any better as a track, of course.

Probably more than half joking his Mother is Belgian and I believe he was born in Belgium?

My understanding is that Assen might have been a better choice but it's a top class MotoGP circuit and there was some qualms that it would have ruined the track for the riders?

His mum indeed is Belgian, and Max lived in Belgium for most of his life. Incidently, his "real" home race, before moving to Monaco, would be a race at Zolder.

It's not very clear to me what exactly the problem was in choosing between the two tracks, but according to one article I found, preparing Assen for F1 would have cost less. My guess is that the historic link with the old Zandvoort track, and the fact it is very close to Schiphol airport and a number of major Dutch cities that clinched it for them. Considering the fantastic MotoGP racing we get every year from Assen, I'm glad their safety won't be compromised in any way.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Hopefully then they will leave all of the gravel traps in place. Wasn't MotoGP one of the primary reasons why they started replacing gravel traps with tarmac run-offs? If Zandvoort punishes mistakes hard then that might make for good viewing

Actually its the opposite. MotoGP riders and safety is better with more gravel. Fundamentally different from F1. If there is a failure of some kind in F1, most of the time they retain usage of the brakes, and runoff allows them to toffee apple speed faster than gravel, which tends to tip the cars in to flipping easier. Motorcycles, on the other hand, if there is a crash of some kind and they are ejected, lose very little speed on tarmac run-off and they often take far longer to come to a stop, and in some cases, they don't, and hit the barriers at high speed.

Some tracks just don't work well for both. COTA, for example, as much is it pains me to say it. There is way too much tarmac run off there.

Gravel/tarmac is actually a subject which should have it's own stuck thread on this page, it's such an engrossing and interesting discussion.

Back to Zandvoort, i would imagine they will remove nearly all of them, going by current F1 safety standards.

Hopefully then they will leave all of the gravel traps in place. Wasn't MotoGP one of the primary reasons why they started replacing gravel traps with tarmac run-offs? If Zandvoort punishes mistakes hard then that might make for good viewing

Actually its the opposite. MotoGP riders and safety is better with more gravel. Fundamentally different from F1. If there is a failure of some kind in F1, most of the time they retain usage of the brakes, and runoff allows them to toffee apple speed faster than gravel, which tends to tip the cars in to flipping easier. Motorcycles, on the other hand, if there is a crash of some kind and they are ejected, lose very little speed on tarmac run-off and they often take far longer to come to a stop, and in some cases, they don't, and hit the barriers at high speed.

Some tracks just don't work well for both. COTA, for example, as much is it pains me to say it. There is way too much tarmac run off there.

Gravel/tarmac is actually a subject which should have it's own stuck thread on this page, it's such an engrossing and interesting discussion.

Back to Zandvoort, i would imagine they will remove nearly all of them, going by current F1 safety standards.

Ok maybe I got it backwards. I was certain MotoGP was always cited as a reason for tarmac. But it never made sense to me for the reasons that you've described

Hopefully then they will leave all of the gravel traps in place. Wasn't MotoGP one of the primary reasons why they started replacing gravel traps with tarmac run-offs? If Zandvoort punishes mistakes hard then that might make for good viewing

Actually its the opposite. MotoGP riders and safety is better with more gravel. Fundamentally different from F1. If there is a failure of some kind in F1, most of the time they retain usage of the brakes, and runoff allows them to toffee apple speed faster than gravel, which tends to tip the cars in to flipping easier. Motorcycles, on the other hand, if there is a crash of some kind and they are ejected, lose very little speed on tarmac run-off and they often take far longer to come to a stop, and in some cases, they don't, and hit the barriers at high speed.

Some tracks just don't work well for both. COTA, for example, as much is it pains me to say it. There is way too much tarmac run off there.

Gravel/tarmac is actually a subject which should have it's own stuck thread on this page, it's such an engrossing and interesting discussion.

Back to Zandvoort, i would imagine they will remove nearly all of them, going by current F1 safety standards.

Daniel Ricciardo asked if they could put gravel down at the esses in Mexico in the drivers briefing and Charlie Whiting replied that it had to be tarmac because of the MotoGP.

I believe you, but I find that hard to believe that Charlie would say that. The debate on MotoGP ever going to Mexico City is currently in a flux due to how unsafe the track would be in its current state for motorcycles. That straight they have---Jesus GP bikes might hit 230mph on it. To say nothing of the stadium section, how close the walls are....I sincerely doubt they ever race there.

Hopefully then they will leave all of the gravel traps in place. Wasn't MotoGP one of the primary reasons why they started replacing gravel traps with tarmac run-offs? If Zandvoort punishes mistakes hard then that might make for good viewing

Actually its the opposite. MotoGP riders and safety is better with more gravel. Fundamentally different from F1. If there is a failure of some kind in F1, most of the time they retain usage of the brakes, and runoff allows them to toffee apple speed faster than gravel, which tends to tip the cars in to flipping easier. Motorcycles, on the other hand, if there is a crash of some kind and they are ejected, lose very little speed on tarmac run-off and they often take far longer to come to a stop, and in some cases, they don't, and hit the barriers at high speed.

Some tracks just don't work well for both. COTA, for example, as much is it pains me to say it. There is way too much tarmac run off there.

Gravel/tarmac is actually a subject which should have it's own stuck thread on this page, it's such an engrossing and interesting discussion.

Back to Zandvoort, i would imagine they will remove nearly all of them, going by current F1 safety standards.

Ok maybe I got it backwards. I was certain MotoGP was always cited as a reason for tarmac. But it never made sense to me for the reasons that you've described

It depends on the corner; but in the last few years MotoGP has moved to tarmac running into gravel. Pre airbag the thinking was to roll through the gravel. Since the airbag its best to spread eagle across tarmac to lose speed before hitting the gravel.

I believe you, but I find that hard to believe that Charlie would say that. The debate on MotoGP ever going to Mexico City is currently in a flux due to how unsafe the track would be in its current state for motorcycles. That straight they have---Jesus GP bikes might hit 230mph on it. To say nothing of the stadium section, how close the walls are....I sincerely doubt they ever race there.

I've listened to it again and I'm wrong. It was the Astro turf they couldn't have because of MotoGP.

I believe you, but I find that hard to believe that Charlie would say that. The debate on MotoGP ever going to Mexico City is currently in a flux due to how unsafe the track would be in its current state for motorcycles. That straight they have---Jesus GP bikes might hit 230mph on it. To say nothing of the stadium section, how close the walls are....I sincerely doubt they ever race there.

I've listened to it again and I'm wrong. It was the Astro turf they couldn't have because of MotoGP.

I never understood the need for astroturf anywhere. Last year I found artificial grass in the playground of my old primary school. What is this world coming to when children are given the idea that real isn't good enough?

I always found it odd that MotoGP riders are allowed to run both wheels past the white line repeatedly. Of course I understand that if this happens inadvertently, their safety is priority number one. But allowing riders to go beyond the white line without penalty is inviting accidents.

Looking for some background concerning the preference for Zandvoort over Assen, I read in an article that Assen claimed "updating" Zandvoort would be a lot more expensive, so other factors would have been decisive.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

I think the track is awesome, but over the last few years it's been almost impossible to overtake in Formula 3, though that doesn't always translate to how hard it is in F1. Think I might prefer it to tracks where there's a car park to turn around in if you go off either way, though.

I believe you, but I find that hard to believe that Charlie would say that. The debate on MotoGP ever going to Mexico City is currently in a flux due to how unsafe the track would be in its current state for motorcycles. That straight they have---Jesus GP bikes might hit 230mph on it. To say nothing of the stadium section, how close the walls are....I sincerely doubt they ever race there.

I've listened to it again and I'm wrong. It was the Astro turf they couldn't have because of MotoGP.

I never understood the need for astroturf anywhere. Last year I found artificial grass in the playground of my old primary school. What is this world coming to when children are given the idea that real isn't good enough?

Astro-turf is actually a really good deterrent for car racing. It has virtually no grip, so it's slippery and you don't gain by running over it, but it also can't make the car dig in and flip like real grass and dirt.